DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 May 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 35, 42, 46-48, 54, and 58 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35: “the integrated image sensors” in line 13 should be “the array of integrated image sensors” or “each integrated image sensor” or “integrated image sensors of the array of integrated image sensors” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 42: “the radiation-sensing pixels” in line 3 should be “the array or radiation-sensing pixels” or “each radiation-sensing pixel” or “radiation-sensing pixels of the array of radiation-sensing pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 46: “the integrated image sensors” in line 2 should be “the array of integrated image sensors” or “each integrated image sensor” or “integrated image sensors of the array of integrated image sensors” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 47: “the radiation-sensing pixels” in line 3 should be “the array or radiation-sensing pixels” or “each radiation-sensing pixel” or “radiation-sensing pixels of the array of radiation-sensing pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 48: ”has different focal lengths, focal lengths, pixel size, or…” in lines 12-13 should be “has different focal lengths, pixel size, or…” and “the integrated image sensors” in lines 15-16 should be “the array of integrated image sensors” or “each integrated image sensor” or “integrated image sensors of the array of integrated image sensors” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 54: “the radiation-sensing pixels” in line 2 should be “the array or radiation-sensing pixels” or “each radiation-sensing pixel” or “radiation-sensing pixels of the array of radiation-sensing pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 58: “the integrated image sensors” in line 1 should be “the array of integrated image sensors” or “each integrated image sensor” or “integrated image sensors of the array of integrated image sensors” and “the radiation-sensing pixels” in line 2 should be “the array or radiation-sensing pixels” or “each radiation-sensing pixel” or “radiation-sensing pixels of the array of radiation-sensing pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 55, “spatial phase data” in line 1 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 48, on which claim 55 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same spatial phase data mentioned previously or different spatial phase data? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same spatial phase data mentioned previously. Additionally, “signals” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 48, on which claim 55 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same signals mentioned previously or different signals? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same signals mentioned previously.
Claim 56 is rejected for its dependency on claim 55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 35-38, 40-42, 45-46, 48-54, and 57-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (USPGPub 20200213487 A1) in view of Nishida et al. (USPGPub 20050275746 A1), Kim (USPGPub 20170186163 A1), Or-Bach et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10910364 B2), and Menzel (What is fog and edge computing?).
Regarding claim 35, Nakata teaches a spatial phase integrated wafer-level imaging system comprising: an integrated image sensor (20) including: an array of radiation-sensing pixels (110) configured to detect electromagnetic radiation (see figures 1 and 2, imaging element 20 comprising a plurality of pixels having photodiodes; and ¶34, The imaging element 20 has a second-dimensional (2D) layout of pixels, converting intensity of incident light into electric charge and outputting the electric charge to the image processing section 22); and a polarization structure (116) disposed over the array of radiation-sensing pixels (110) (see figures 2 and 15, polarizer layer 116); an array of microlenses (112) positioned above the array of radiation-sensing pixels (110) (see figure 2, microlens layer 112); and a processor (22) configured to generate spatial phase data based on signals from the integrated image sensor (20) (see figure 8, associated processing section 22; and ¶69, The feature point distance acquisition section 34 includes a phase difference detection section 46, a distance value acquisition section 48, and a distance correspondence table 50. The phase difference detection section 46 generates a phase difference image by separating, of the pixel values acquired by the pixel value acquisition section 32, those pixel values detected by the left and right photodiodes). However, Nakata fails to explicitly teach an imaging wafer comprising an array of integrated image sensors, wafer-level integrated optics stacked on the imaging wafer, the wafer-level integrated optics comprising an array of microlenses, wherein each microlens is positioned above a respective integrated image sensor and has at least one of a different focal length, pixel size, or integration time from at least one other microlens in the array of microlenses; and a processing wafer comprising edge processors configured to generate data based on signals from the integrated image sensors.
However, Nishida teaches an imaging wafer (32) comprising an array of integrated image sensors (10A), and wafer-level integrated optics (9) stacked on the imaging wafer (32) (see figure 6; ¶45, Formed in the semiconductor wafer 32 are a plurality of the imaging sections 10a, on each of which the microlens arrays 9 are attached; and ¶35, The imaging section 10a, as is commonly known, includes plural pixels arranged in a matrix, each of which pixels has a photoelectric conversion function and an electric charge accumulation function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakata to incorporate the teachings of Nishida to form a plurality of imager arrays in an array in order to decrease the manufacturing cost as well as decreasing the processing steps (see ¶¶10-19). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein each microlens is positioned above a respective integrated image sensor and has at least one of a different focal length, pixel size, or integration time from at least one other microlens in the array of microlenses; and a processing wafer comprising edge processors configured to generate data based on signals from the integrated image sensors.
However, Kim teaches wherein each microlens is positioned above a respective integrated image sensor and has at least one of a different focal length, pixel size, or integration time from at least one other microlens in the array of microlenses (see figure 5; and ¶79, a first lens concentrating light on the first image sensor pixel array 521 may be a lens of a main camera having an auto-focus function, a second lens concentrating light on the second image sensor pixel array 522 may be a lens of a first sub-camera having an auto-focus function, and a third lens concentrating light on the third image sensor pixel array 523 may be a telephoto lens of a second sub-camera. The first lens and the second lens may have a same focal length and a same angle of view. A focal length of the third lens may be longer than a focal length of the first lens, having a zoom effect of magnifying a small subject area to a high definition. An angle of view of the third lens may be narrower than the angle of view of the first lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata and Nishida to incorporate the teachings of Kim to have microlenses of different focal lengths in order to either obtain images having different characteristics, or in order to increase the quality of the image sensor. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a processing wafer comprising edge processors configured to generate data based on signals from the integrated image sensors.
However, Or-Bach teaches a processing wafer comprising processors configured to generate data based on signals from the integrated image sensors (see figure 10E, array of microprocessors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata, Nishida, and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Or-Bach to provide an array of processors in order to perform processing for each imager array. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the processors are edge processors.
However, Menzel teaches wherein the processors are edge processors (page 2, paragraph 1, Edge and fog computing concepts have been developed to respond to the cheer increase of data bandwidth required by end devices and has been fuelled by the explosion of IoT(Internet of Things) which in turn has increased the need to process the generated data much closer to the source in real time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata, Nishida, Kim, and Or-Bach to incorporate the teachings of Menzel to have the processors be edge processors as they are used for reducing the amount of data that needs to be processed (page 1), which in turn reduces latency and cost and increases quality (page 2).
Regarding claim 48, Nakata teaches a method of spatial phase integrated wafer-level imaging comprising: generating an image by operation of a spatial phase integrated wafer-level imaging system (¶33, An imaging apparatus 12 includes an image forming optics 14, an aperture 18, an imaging element 20, and an image processing section 22. The image forming optics 14 has an ordinary configuration including a focusing lens that forms a subject image on an imaging surface of the imaging element 20) comprising: an integrated image sensor (20) including: an array of radiation-sensing pixels (110) configured to detect electromagnetic radiation (see figures 1 and 2, imaging element 20 comprising a plurality of pixels having photodiodes; and ¶34, The imaging element 20 has a second-dimensional (2D) layout of pixels, converting intensity of incident light into electric charge and outputting the electric charge to the image processing section 22); and a polarization structure (116) disposed over the array of radiation-sensing pixels (110) (see figures 2 and 15, polarizer layer 116); an array of microlenses (112) positioned above the array of radiation-sensing pixels (110) (see figure 2, microlens layer 112); and a processor (22), wherein generating the image comprises generating spatial phase data based on signals from the integrated image sensor (20) using the processor (22) (see figure 8, associated processing section 22; and ¶69, The feature point distance acquisition section 34 includes a phase difference detection section 46, a distance value acquisition section 48, and a distance correspondence table 50. The phase difference detection section 46 generates a phase difference image by separating, of the pixel values acquired by the pixel value acquisition section 32, those pixel values detected by the left and right photodiodes). However, Nakata fails to explicitly teach an imaging wafer comprising an array of integrated image sensors, wafer-level integrated optics stacked on the imaging wafer, the wafer-level integrated optics comprising an array of microlenses, wherein each microlens is positioned above a respective integrated image sensor and has different focal lengths, focal lengths, pixel size, or integration time from at least one other microlens in the array of microlenses; and a processing wafer comprising edge processors configured to generate data based on signals from the integrated image sensors.
However, Nishida teaches an imaging wafer (32) comprising an array of integrated image sensors (10A), and wafer-level integrated optics (9) stacked on the imaging wafer (32) (see figure 6; ¶45, Formed in the semiconductor wafer 32 are a plurality of the imaging sections 10a, on each of which the microlens arrays 9 are attached; and ¶35, The imaging section 10a, as is commonly known, includes plural pixels arranged in a matrix, each of which pixels has a photoelectric conversion function and an electric charge accumulation function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakata to incorporate the teachings of Nishida to form a plurality of imager arrays in an array in order to decrease the manufacturing cost as well as decreasing the processing steps (see ¶¶10-19). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein each microlens is positioned above a respective integrated image sensor and has different focal lengths, focal lengths, pixel size, or integration time from at least one other microlens in the array of microlenses; and a processing wafer comprising edge processors configured to generate data based on signals from the integrated image sensors.
However, Kim teaches wherein each microlens is positioned above a respective integrated image sensor and has different focal lengths, focal lengths, pixel size, or integration time from at least one other microlens in the array of microlenses (see figure 5; and ¶79, a first lens concentrating light on the first image sensor pixel array 521 may be a lens of a main camera having an auto-focus function, a second lens concentrating light on the second image sensor pixel array 522 may be a lens of a first sub-camera having an auto-focus function, and a third lens concentrating light on the third image sensor pixel array 523 may be a telephoto lens of a second sub-camera. The first lens and the second lens may have a same focal length and a same angle of view. A focal length of the third lens may be longer than a focal length of the first lens, having a zoom effect of magnifying a small subject area to a high definition. An angle of view of the third lens may be narrower than the angle of view of the first lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata and Nishida to incorporate the teachings of Kim to have microlenses of different focal lengths in order to either obtain images having different characteristics, or in order to increase the quality of the image sensor. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a processing wafer comprising edge processors configured to generate data based on signals from the integrated image sensors.
However, Or-Bach teaches a processing wafer comprising processors configured to generate data based on signals from the integrated image sensors (see figure 10E, array of microprocessors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata, Nishida, and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Or-Bach to provide an array of processors in order to perform processing for each imager array. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the processors are edge processors.
However, Menzel teaches wherein the processors are edge processors (page 2, paragraph 1, Edge and fog computing concepts have been developed to respond to the cheer increase of data bandwidth required by end devices and has been fuelled by the explosion of IoT(Internet of Things) which in turn has increased the need to process the generated data much closer to the source in real time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata, Nishida, Kim, and Or-Bach to incorporate the teachings of Menzel to have the processors be edge processors as they are used for reducing the amount of data that needs to be processed (page 1), which in turn reduces latency and cost and increases quality (page 2).
Regarding claims 36 and 49, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches wherein the polarization structure (Nakata 116) comprises a unit cell having a 2x2 pattern of polarizer pixels with different metal wire orientations (Nakata, see figure 15(c); and ¶38, The polarizer layer 116 includes a wire grid polarizer formed by arranging a plurality of linear conductor members such as tungsten or aluminum members (wires) in a striped pattern).
Regarding claims 37 and 50, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches wherein the different metal wire orientations comprise 0-degree, 45-degree, 90-degree, and 135-degree orientations (Nakata, see figure 15; and ¶102, changing the principal axis angle every 45 degrees provides the four types of pixels as illustrated in the figure).
Regarding claims 38 and 51, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches wherein the polarization structure (Nakata 116) comprises metal nanowires formed from aluminum, copper, tungsten, tin, chromium, indium, gold, or a combination thereof (Nakata, ¶38, The polarizer layer 116 includes a wire grid polarizer formed by arranging a plurality of linear conductor members such as tungsten or aluminum members (wires) in a striped pattern).
Regarding claims 40 and 52, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches wherein the array of radiation-sensing pixels (Nakata 110) comprises photodiodes, charge coupled devices, longwave infrared detectors, X-ray detectors, or photogates (Nakata, abstract, A photoelectric conversion layer 118 includes a plurality of photodiodes in the pixel regions).
Regarding claims 41 and 53, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches wherein the wafer-level integrated optics comprises multiple optical wafers stacked together (Nishida, see figure 11, elements 75, 74, 71, and 73 forming an optical layer; and see figure 6).
Regarding claims 42 and 54, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches wherein the edge processors are configured to perform analog preprocessing on intensities recorded at the radiation-sensing pixels before converting to digital form (Nakata, ¶68, The pixel value acquisition section 32 acquires a luminance signal, detected by the imaging element 20, as 2D data and performs given preprocessing such as analog-to-digital (A/D) conversion; and Kim, ¶19, The signal processor may include a plurality of analog signal processors configured to convert analog signals from respective ones of the plurality of image sensor pixel arrays into respective digital signals; and Menzel, pages 1-2).
Regarding claims 45 and 57, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches the imaging system further comprising a control wafer attached to the processing wafer, the control wafer comprising control processors configured to process data from multiple edge processors (Kim, ¶124, Instructions or software to control a processor or computer to implement the hardware components as described above are written as computer programs, code segments, instructions or any combination thereof, for individually or collectively instructing or configuring the processor or computer to operate as a machine or special-purpose computer to perform the operations performed by the hardware components as described above; and Or-Bach, see figure 10E, array of processors; and Menzel, pages 1-2).
Regarding claims 46 and 58, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches wherein the integrated image sensors are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation in visible light, near infrared, short-wave infrared, mid-wave infrared, long-wave infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, X-ray, gamma ray, radio frequency, or terahertz ranges (Nakata, see figure 3, light sensors for detecting red, green, and blue wavelengths of light).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (USPGPub 20200213487 A1) in view of Nishida et al. (USPGPub 20050275746 A1), Kim (USPGPub 20170186163 A1), Or-Bach et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10910364 B2), and Menzel (What is fog and edge computing?) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (USPGPub 20200301053 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches the polarization structure (Nakata 116) (see figures 2 and 15, polarizer layer 116). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the polarization structure comprises one or more material constructs exhibiting birefringence and including plenoptic 3D, a structure including one or more meta-materials, antenna structures, aligned quantum dots, aligned carbon nanotubes, subwavelength structures other than meta-materials, or a combination thereof.
However, Wang teaches wherein the polarization structure comprises one or more material constructs exhibiting birefringence and including plenoptic 3D, a structure including one or more meta-materials, antenna structures, aligned quantum dots, aligned carbon nanotubes, subwavelength structures other than meta-materials, or a combination thereof (¶71, A coating 143 of a polymeric medium containing dispersed nanowires is formed over the substrate, as shown in FIG. 14(b). The nanowires may be made of a semiconductor material or metal. Materials with sufficiently high conductivity, such as metallic nanowires or carbon nanotubes, are preferred as they are able to achieve high extinction ratio between orthogonal polarizations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata, Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include metallic nanowires of carbon nanotubes because [m]aterials with sufficiently high conductivity, such as metallic nanowires or carbon nanotubes, are preferred as they are able to achieve high extinction ratio between orthogonal polarizations (Wang, ¶71).
Claims 43-44 and 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (USPGPub 20200213487 A1) in view of Nishida et al. (USPGPub 20050275746 A1), Kim (USPGPub 20170186163 A1), Or-Bach et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10910364 B2), and Menzel (What is fog and edge computing?) as applied to claims 35 and 48 above, and further in view of Barrett et al. (USPGPub 20050279917 A1) and Deng et al. (CN 106096634 A).
Regarding claims 43 and 55, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches edge processor configured to process spatial phase data (Nakata, see figure 8, associated processing section 22; and ¶69, The feature point distance acquisition section 34 includes a phase difference detection section 46, a distance value acquisition section 48, and a distance correspondence table 50. The phase difference detection section 46 generates a phase difference image by separating, of the pixel values acquired by the pixel value acquisition section 32, those pixel values detected by the left and right photodiodes; and Menzel, pages 1-2). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to generate first-order primitives and second-order primitives based on the data.
However, Barret teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate primitives based on the data (see figure 3; and ¶14, FIG. 3 is a flow chart setting forth a method in accordance with the teachings of the present invention for calculating the image primitives: edge magnitude; primary edge orientation; edge displacement from the center receptor; and exact edge orientation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata, Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel to incorporate the teachings of Barrett to provide a primitive edge detector in order to determine information about the object. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the primitives are first-order primitive and second-order primitives.
However, Deng teaches wherein the primitives are first-order primitive and second-order primitives (see figure 2, seven primitives (i.e., primitives) represented by first-order derivatives and second-order derivatives).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata, Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, Menzel, and Barrett to incorporate the teachings of Deng to provide first and second order primitives in order to determine the shape/orientation/slope of the edges of the object.
Regarding claims 44 and 56, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, Menzel, Barrett, and Deng teaches wherein the second-order primitives comprise Stokes parameters, degree of linear polarization, angle of linear polarization, or surface normal vectors (Barrett, ¶19, the present invention includes an apparatus and method for providing image primitives, such as edge polarity, edge magnitude, edge orientation, and edge displacement, and derivatives thereof).
Claims 47 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (USPGPub 20200213487 A1) in view of Nishida et al. (USPGPub 20050275746 A1), Kim (USPGPub 20170186163 A1), Or-Bach et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10910364 B2), and Menzel (What is fog and edge computing?) as applied to claims 35 and 48 above, and further in view of Uesaka (USPGPub 20190006407 A1).
Regarding claims 47 and 59, Nakata as modified by Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel teaches radiation-sensing pixels (Nakata, see figures 1 and 2). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the imaging wafer comprises trench isolation features that define boundaries of the radiation-sensing pixels and are filled with metal to reduce crosstalk between adjacent pixels.
However, Uesaka teaches wherein the imaging wafer comprises trench isolation features (126) that define boundaries of the radiation-sensing pixels (P) and are filled with metal to reduce crosstalk between adjacent pixels (P) (see figure 2, polarizer 124 arranged vertically and disposed over photoelectric conversion device 122 having boundaries 125 and 126; and ¶59, A through-hole electrode 126 includes an electrically conductive light-shielding material as with the polarizer 124 and the light-shielding film 125. The through-hole electrode 126 extends down from the light-shielding film 125, penetrates the semiconductor substrate 102, and is formed so as to enclose the side surface of each photoelectric conversion device 122, thereby also functioning as a filled light-shielding film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nakata, Nishida, Kim, Or-Bach, and Menzel to incorporate the teachings of Uesaka to further include a light-shielding element between pixels in order to reduce crosstalk and thereby reduce noise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights